ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0005638 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

02 May 1996 AGE Project No. 95-0108 Page 3 of 7 3.0. ASSESSMENT OF HYDROCARBON-IMPACTED SOIL 3.1. SOIL BORING DRILLING, JULY AND SEPTEMBER 1992 On 06 July 1992, four soil borings were advanced at the site under the direction of T & T Earth Services of Jackson, California. Each boring was advanced to a depth of 3 5 feet below surface grade (bsg) by Hunt Drilling of Jackson. Petroleum hydrocarbon odors were noted in samples from each soil boring. A total of twelve soil samples were submitted to State-certified laboratory for analysis. TPH-g and TPH-d were detected in soil samples from each boring at concentrations up to 2,600 ppm (B 1-37"- 55"). No BTE&X were detected in any of the soil samples; however, method detection/reporting limits for BTE&X were above PHS-EHD acceptable concentrations. Analytical results of boring soil samples are included in Table 2. At the request of the PHS-EHD, two additional soil borings were advanced at the site by T&T on 08 September 1992, Borings LCSB-1D and LCSB4-1D were placed immediately adjacent to borings . SBI and SB4 to obtain duplicate samples for analysis using acceptable method detection/reporting limits for BTE&X. A PHS-EHD inspection report indicates that no hydrocarbon odors were noted in samples collected from the duplicate borings. However, analytical results of TPH-d for soil samples were not located in PHS-EHD files. A copy of the PHS-EHD Field Inspection Report is included in Appendix B. 3.2. HYDROCARBON-IMPACTED STOCKPILE SOIL SAMPLING, FEBRUARY 1993 On 04 February 1993, Park Environmental of Roseville, California collected nine soil samples from the stockpiled soil and one composite water sample from run-off water that accumulated in the former UST excavation. Approximately 350 cubic yards of hydrocarbon impacted-soil, were stockpile adjacent to the former UST area. All samples were transported to Sierra Laboratories in Anaheim, California for analysis of TPH-d. TPH-d was not detected in the soil or grab water samples collected from the site. In a letter dated 23 March 1993, the PHS-EHD stated that soil sampling performed on 04 February 1993 was not witnessed by PHS-EHD staff and soil samples were not collected using preferred methodology. Furthermore, the letter states that both soil and water samples should have been analyzed for TPH-g and BTE&X in addition to TPH-d. Therefore, a request by Park Environmental to backfill the former UST area with the excavated soil was denied by the PHS-EHD. It is our understanding the soil remained stockpiled adjacent to the excavation.